Letters From OC Weekly Readers

THE GUN NO-SHOWNothing screams "I'm innocent" like being a wiseass with homicide detectives during a very serious interview [R. Scott Moxley's Moxley Confidential, "Eric, Get Your Gun," July 1]. And then taking it a step further and evading cops while under surveillance. I wonder what he could have possibly had to hide?

TRAFFIC BLIGHTWay to go! Nothing but praise for this article [Martin Cizmar, Ellis Conklin and Kristen Hinman's "Real Men Get Their Facts Straight," July 1]. To all these empty-headed Gap/A&F-wearing, It-following, suburbanite drones: Be ashamed of your lack of critical-thinking skills. The article was about dumb-ass Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore's intentions. The article was about how a cause is being exploited by politicos and celebrities who are really doing nothing about it, except to look good. If you read it—really read it, and I know it is hard for you imbeciles—it was saying that there is no basis to make a factual statement on exploited children. Basically, putting into words that you dumb-asses can comprehend (sorry, big word meaning understand, still too big of word), nothing is being done to track this issue. Also, what the article was talking about is that we are generating all this money for the victims, who are not receiving anything from it. So Village Voice Media is trying to bring awareness to it and shed some light on it and calling Ashton "Stupid Ass" Kutcher what he is: a poseur. Again, great article. Hit the nail on the head about celebs and politicos and their causes.

Details

Letters may be edited for clarity and length. E-mail to letters@ocweekly.com, or mail to Letters to the Editor, c/o OC Weekly, 2975 Red Hill Ave., Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Or fax to (714) 550-5908.

I don't care if someone has made their money/gained national fame by playing a "stupid" character on TV. If that person is willing to spend their time and money raising awareness on an issue such as child prostitution, then I applaud them. And sorry if they're not putting disclaimers on their "100,000 to 300,000" statement by saying, "Oh, but don't worry guys, this number is artificially high because these people are ONLY at risk." How dare they even try to raise awareness on such an issue without writing a freaking doctoral thesis on the subject.

Honestly, this article makes me sick. The fact that a news agency can mock someone for trying to help young children out of sex slavery is disgusting. I don't care if they're overestimating. . . . An estimate of 10 to 30 girls as opposed to 100,000 to 300,000 still makes this an incredibly heinous crime. It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach that anyone would write an entire article trying to downplay this issue. It is an incredible disgrace. I honestly have to say I have never been more disgusted by an article.

Not everyone commenting against the article cares about the celebrity component of the article or supports its cause. It's more about finding disgust in the way the article chose to angle its debate. The tone was insensitive about an issue that, to some, is very real and not something to be flippant about. Those of you who are debating this issue through your belief in legalizing adult prostitution, I want to remind you that the article was not about that. If that's the point it wanted to make, then it shouldn't have focused on children in the sex industry. That is not consensual and is disgusting. How can you suggest it is the same issue?

Kutcher says there are 100,000 to 300,000 children in sex slavery today. He says a researcher named Estes has the data to back it up.

Estes' research, however, says that is the "at risk" number, not the number actually being trafficked.

Estes then goes on to have this exchange with Village Voice Media:

"How many kids are involved in sex slavery—forcibly taken into the trade and abused? 'That number would be small,' Estes acknowledges. 'Kids who are kidnapped and sold into slavery—that number would be very small.' When we talk about very small, what sort of number are we talking about? 'We're talking about a few hundred people."'

His campaign would have more impact if it were based on factual numbers. That is the point of the article. It is not downplaying the issue; it is pointing out that many celebs and weak nonprofits use fake numbers to build up support. That is unethical and wrong.